4 ms·

And not to reciprocate, but free markets are much more likely to be transparent than any other. When a free market realizes consumers demand transparency, tran

And not to reciprocate, but free markets are much more likely to be transparent than any other. When a free market realizes consumers demand transparency, transparency becomes an option in the market. Not the only option, but one of the many. How would that transparency work in a market that is absolutely controlled by regulation and government? Fine, until that government itself ceased to be transparent. ASIDE: There are no absolutely controlled markets or absolutely free markets and never will be. Capitalism will always seep out around the edges and regulation will always be necessary.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago
You're conflating things. You can have ab200% regulated market with total transparency either by regulators or the participating companies ... I mean actual the implication that you get a transparent market from a free market because of "consumer demands" is sort of laughable when you consider that the free market on planet Earth does not contain perfect agents.
- Zuider 13y ago
  >...when you consider that the free market on planet Earth does not contain perfect agents. But the same imperfect agents, human beings, also constitute governments and bureaucracies. Markets are not a perfect institution, and it is very easy to point out flaws, but they have an observed tendency towards improvement, self ordering, and discovery of better resources that is lacking from government. Flaws in the market tend towards being corrected while flaws in government tend to become entrenched, obfuscated, and aggressively defended against any attempt to reveal and correct them.
abalone 13y ago
> free markets are much more likely to be transparent than any other. That's wishful thinking contradicted by oodles of historical experience. Random example: the unregulated market for medicine in the U.S. prior to the 20th century. The problem is consumers are not organized by default. Markets typically reflect individual preferences just fine, but individuals don't have the resources to fact-check propaganda, research and verify conditions of production, etc. This aspect of "consumer demand" requires collective organization to express effectively. A buying group is one example. But these things take investments of their own to start up, which is why you mostly find them among business customers. One of the reasons the corporate group health insurance market is so much better than the individual one. For the everyman, the government is a mechanism by which they can express collective demand. And it's why food and medicine safety, to pick one fundamental, has never been effectively secured for the general public absent government regulation.
- dnautics 13y ago
  you don't suppose the danger of the market for medicine in the US prior to the 20th century had anything to do with the fact that chemistry didn't exist as a discipline? Just what do you expect them to have regulated? The free market is quite good at providing consumers information, but often only if the consumers demand it. For a few decades now, consumers have gradually become more ethical in their consumption choices, and the markets are reflecting that. It's a long road and there are certainly many, many places where things can be improved. By contrast, consider that there is a lot of demand for certain values, like transparency, honesty, not sexually harassing your underlings, in government, and exactly how responsive do you suppose it's been? The faulty assumption is that government will somehow be 'the betters' of the general public. But every indication of the narcissistic type that gets elected, and the petty bureaucratic authoritarian that is unelected, suggests that those advancement in government may not necessarily select for those traits you want. Neither does capitalism (as it's structured today), but at least consumers have a direct option to opt-out of unethical things done with their money, which they do not for government. To pick another "fundamental", why do you suppose lightbulbs don't explode, and various and sundry electrical equipment doesn't electrocute you in the US? It's because regulation is being done by a private, nonprofit entity (the underwriter's laboratories) which goes through and certifies equipment for consumption. A good example of the free market working quite well to ensure safety, beyond even what the consumer might expect, with far less government interference.
  - abalone 13y ago
    > For a few decades now, consumers have gradually become more ethical in their consumption choices Look at the history behind that. It came out of the 60s. Massive popular organization against the system. A gigantic non-market force that effected greater awareness of environmental destruction, the conditions of production and so forth. Consumers didn't just wake up one day with new preferences. They rioted against the market system. P.S. You forgot about OSHA federal electrical safety regulations.
    - dnautics 13y ago
coldtea 13y ago
>And not to reciprocate, but free markets are much more likely to be transparent than any other. When a free market realizes consumers demand transparency, transparency becomes an option in the market. Not the only option, but one of the many. One that rarely, if ever, happens. Because, for one customers are powerless against a whole industry, second the industry can lobby to buy regulations and fix the conditions so it won't have to be transparent and third the people are told and manipulated by the very corporations (and the media they control either directly or through advertising money) to not ask for transparency. Plus, the industry can sell "fake transparency" and none will be the wiser. That kind of reaction for transparency can only work for a small time, against some niche or singled-out company -- and that's only until the media moves on, the public forgets, and the company makes some vague promises and alters arragements enough to confuse people that it made "changes". Like Nike sweatshops, Foxconn, etc. The markets most likely to be transparent are those that are heavily regulated, with a vigilant population and where profit is not respected as the number one motivation behind business. And those are not those commonly touted as "free markets", but markets in places like New Zealand, Sweden, etc.
- nikatwork 13y ago
  I think the common ground in these "govt regulations" versus "free market" arguments is that both sides want to see transparency, encourage consumer choice and avoid monopolies; it's the means that's disagreed upon. > second the industry can lobby to buy regulations and fix the conditions so it won't have to be transparent This seems to be most of a problem in the US, where money has such a direct influence on government. This doesn't mean that all govt is bad; it means that corrupt govt is bad. To use your New Zealand example, they have arguably the most advanced and representative democratic system in existence. I think this helps limit antisocial corporate pressure (aka corruption) on their government regulations.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

You're conflating things. You can have ab200% regulated market with total transparency either by regulators or the participating companies ... I mean actual the implication that you get a transparent market from a free market because of "consumer demands" is sort of laughable when you consider that the free market on planet Earth does not contain perfect agents.

Zuider 13y ago
>...when you consider that the free market on planet Earth does not contain perfect agents. But the same imperfect agents, human beings, also constitute governments and bureaucracies. Markets are not a perfect institution, and it is very easy to point out flaws, but they have an observed tendency towards improvement, self ordering, and discovery of better resources that is lacking from government. Flaws in the market tend towards being corrected while flaws in government tend to become entrenched, obfuscated, and aggressively defended against any attempt to reveal and correct them.

abalone 13y ago

> free markets are much more likely to be transparent than any other. That's wishful thinking contradicted by oodles of historical experience. Random example: the unregulated market for medicine in the U.S. prior to the 20th century. The problem is consumers are not organized by default. Markets typically reflect individual preferences just fine, but individuals don't have the resources to fact-check propaganda, research and verify conditions of production, etc. This aspect of "consumer demand" requires collective organization to express effectively. A buying group is one example. But these things take investments of their own to start up, which is why you mostly find them among business customers. One of the reasons the corporate group health insurance market is so much better than the individual one. For the everyman, the government is a mechanism by which they can express collective demand. And it's why food and medicine safety, to pick one fundamental, has never been effectively secured for the general public absent government regulation.

dnautics 13y ago
you don't suppose the danger of the market for medicine in the US prior to the 20th century had anything to do with the fact that chemistry didn't exist as a discipline? Just what do you expect them to have regulated? The free market is quite good at providing consumers information, but often only if the consumers demand it. For a few decades now, consumers have gradually become more ethical in their consumption choices, and the markets are reflecting that. It's a long road and there are certainly many, many places where things can be improved. By contrast, consider that there is a lot of demand for certain values, like transparency, honesty, not sexually harassing your underlings, in government, and exactly how responsive do you suppose it's been? The faulty assumption is that government will somehow be 'the betters' of the general public. But every indication of the narcissistic type that gets elected, and the petty bureaucratic authoritarian that is unelected, suggests that those advancement in government may not necessarily select for those traits you want. Neither does capitalism (as it's structured today), but at least consumers have a direct option to opt-out of unethical things done with their money, which they do not for government. To pick another "fundamental", why do you suppose lightbulbs don't explode, and various and sundry electrical equipment doesn't electrocute you in the US? It's because regulation is being done by a private, nonprofit entity (the underwriter's laboratories) which goes through and certifies equipment for consumption. A good example of the free market working quite well to ensure safety, beyond even what the consumer might expect, with far less government interference.
- abalone 13y ago
  > For a few decades now, consumers have gradually become more ethical in their consumption choices Look at the history behind that. It came out of the 60s. Massive popular organization against the system. A gigantic non-market force that effected greater awareness of environmental destruction, the conditions of production and so forth. Consumers didn't just wake up one day with new preferences. They rioted against the market system. P.S. You forgot about OSHA federal electrical safety regulations.
  - dnautics 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

>And not to reciprocate, but free markets are much more likely to be transparent than any other. When a free market realizes consumers demand transparency, transparency becomes an option in the market. Not the only option, but one of the many. One that rarely, if ever, happens. Because, for one customers are powerless against a whole industry, second the industry can lobby to buy regulations and fix the conditions so it won't have to be transparent and third the people are told and manipulated by the very corporations (and the media they control either directly or through advertising money) to not ask for transparency. Plus, the industry can sell "fake transparency" and none will be the wiser. That kind of reaction for transparency can only work for a small time, against some niche or singled-out company -- and that's only until the media moves on, the public forgets, and the company makes some vague promises and alters arragements enough to confuse people that it made "changes". Like Nike sweatshops, Foxconn, etc. The markets most likely to be transparent are those that are heavily regulated, with a vigilant population and where profit is not respected as the number one motivation behind business. And those are not those commonly touted as "free markets", but markets in places like New Zealand, Sweden, etc.

nikatwork 13y ago
I think the common ground in these "govt regulations" versus "free market" arguments is that both sides want to see transparency, encourage consumer choice and avoid monopolies; it's the means that's disagreed upon. > second the industry can lobby to buy regulations and fix the conditions so it won't have to be transparent This seems to be most of a problem in the US, where money has such a direct influence on government. This doesn't mean that all govt is bad; it means that corrupt govt is bad. To use your New Zealand example, they have arguably the most advanced and representative democratic system in existence. I think this helps limit antisocial corporate pressure (aka corruption) on their government regulations.